On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:55:49 +0100 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think the creation time is currently being ignored as we won't be able > > to accomodate in POSIX stat struct. > > The FS-Cache interface doesn't use the POSIX stat struct, but it could be > really useful to save it and use it for cache coherency inside the kernel. > > Out of interest, what does Samba do when it comes to generating a creation time > for UNIX where one does not exist? > (cc'ing samba-technical since we're talking about the create time) Looks like it mostly uses the ctime. IMO, the mtime would be a better choice since it changes less frequently, but I don't guess that it matters very much. I have a few patches that make the cifs_iget code do more stringent checks. One of those makes it use the create time like an i_generation field to guard against matching inodes that have the same number but that have undergone a delete/create cycle. They need a bit more testing but I'm planning to post them in time for 2.6.36. Because of how samba generates this number, it could be somewhat problematic to do this. What may save us though is that Linux<->Samba mostly uses unix extensions unless someone has specifically disabled them on either end. The unix extension calls don't generally send any sort of create time field, so we can't rely on it in those codepaths anyway. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
